"Pocahontas Meets Adriel Luis’ Slip of the Tongue"

Saw this excellent example of how community advocates can re-construct discriminatory cultural artifacts from the mainstream over on Sociological Images.

Teaching Sociology: How American Media Uses Violence Against Women in Afghanistan to Veil the Public

One of the more difficult things I find when teaching popular culture is getting students to connect media trends to broader trends in society. It is not difficult for students to identify patterns of discrimination. But identifying discrimination alone misses critical context.

Since 2001, the media has been saturated with coverage of “The War on Terror” (or whatever the slogan of the day is). I recently read an extremely interesting journal article by Carol Stabile and Deepa Kumar (2005) in Media, Culture & Society, titled “Unveiling imperialism: media, gender and the war on Afghanistan.”

Stabile and Kumar’s article makes the following key points:

• Prior to 9/11, American politicians and American media were not concerned at all with women’s rights in Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern countries. Following 9/11, all of a sudden, the American military became Afghan women’s saviors across American televisions and in major print sources.


• American media constructs the military’s efforts to liberate Afghan women from their oppressive Afghan male counterparts as a first-time effort, thereby dismissing any and all efforts Afghan women have taken to liberate themselves.


• American media fails to acknowledge that when the United States armed and trained the mujahideen in the 1980s to push back the Soviet Union, the CIA was completely aware of the mujahideen’s extreme sexist tendencies. Thus, American efforts were far more invested in securing contracts to oil pipelines through Afghanistan and winning the Cold War than they were in humanitarian/women’s rights.


• American media never acknowledges that since the Soviet Union was ousted and the Taliban took over Afghanistan (due heavily to American support), Afghan women’s rights declined immensely.


• And since America’s military presence in Afghanistan, our media suggests Afghan women’s conditions have improved, when in reality they have hardly changed.

Some text from Stabile and Kumar’s article:

When we look at the condition of women today in Afghanistan, it becomes clear that the US never really had their liberation in mind. While some things have changed since the collapse of the Taliban for women, much remains the same. So, for instance, women may now venture out in certain regions without a male escort, but they still do not enjoy basic human rights. And while 1.5 million Afghan children now attend schools – one third of them girls – more than 3 million children do not go to schools because no infrastructure exists. Reports reveal that women are still punished according to Islamic laws. Kabul jail had no women prisoners shortly after the fall of the Taliban, but as of April 2002 women were being incarcerated for crimes such as leaving their husbands or having relationships with members of the opposite sex (Ahmed-Ullah, 2002). One year after the US attacked Afghanistan, the war-ravaged country had the second highest maternal mortality rate in the world (Sierra Leone was number one): 1700 out of every 100,000 women died during pregnancy or childbirth. In the US, the maternal mortality rate is 12 out of every 100,000 (Reuters, 2002). In December 2002, Human Rights Watch released a report documenting continued violence against Afghan women, particularly in the Western regions of Afghanistan (Human Rights Watch, 2001). (p. 775, 776).

The bottom line is that the American media does not present a realistic, accurate portrayal of Afghan women because Afghan women's so-called emancipation due to American efforts serves as a moralistic veil, influencing the American public to continue supporting the war. But what’s clear is American economic, political, and military efforts are not truly invested in Afghan girls’ and women’s rights; they are interested in oil.

How then, do we interpret TIME magazine’s recent issue and its cover portrait, showing Aisha – an 18-year-old Afghan woman whose nose and ears were cut off after she fled her abusive in-laws? Richard Stengel, Managing Editor for TIME, discusses the cover portrait in his article, “The Plight of Afghan Women: A Disturbing Picture”:

In the end, I felt that the image is a window into the reality of what is happening — and what can happen — in a war that affects and involves all of us. I would rather confront readers with the Taliban's treatment of women than ignore it. I would rather people know that reality as they make up their minds about what the U.S. and its allies should do in Afghanistan.

The much publicized release of classified documents by WikiLeaks has already ratcheted up the debate about the war. Our story and the haunting cover image by the distinguished South African photographer Jodi Bieber are meant to contribute to that debate. We do not run this story or show this image either in support of the U.S. war effort or in opposition to it. We do it to illuminate what is actually happening on the ground. As lawmakers and citizens begin to sort through the information about the war and make up their minds, our job is to provide context and perspective on one of the most difficult foreign policy issues of our time.

Explicitly, it appears TIME is taking an apolitical approach, simply reporting the news so to speak – reporting what is out there, in turn, allowing the public to make their own assessments. Implicitly, however, it is what is not reported (what is never reported) that makes this picture and the attendant discourse entirely political.

The messages implicitly conveyed: Afghan men and Afghan culture are horrible; American culture is great. We are, once again, the white knights coming in to save the tortured, helpless women of color from their demonic brown-skinned men. Orientalist discourse, truly at its best.

The messages never conveyed: American foreign policy helped set the stage for this hideous practice to transpire by knowingly supporting a regime rooted so deeply in sexism years ago. And now, America continues to invest more in its ubiquitous war machine than it does in say Afghan women’s and girls’ education (seriously, how many schools have been built and sustained by American efforts?) or in public health facilities. Oh, and dimensions of sexism (institutionalized and personal) persist in the United States.

At the risk of being opportunistic myself, the TIME magazine portrait and its attendant stories, coupled with Stabile and Kumar’s article make for an excellent teaching/learning opportunity. Simply viewing the TIME magazine cover and articles, one could easily point to horrifically sexist norms, and stop there. With Stabile and Kumar’s article, the questions and discussion become much richer.

Does the mainstream American media inadvertently (or deliberately) collude with American political, economic, and militaristic entities by using women’s rights as an opportunity to make our country look good, when really, we simply want resources? If efforts were truly being made to impede violence against women, why isn’t our military taking a stand in and around the Democratic Republic of the Congo (listen to this inspiring podcast)? What should America’s role really be in the Middle East if women's rights are a central concern?

Full Reference:

Stabile, C. A., & Kumar, D. (2005). Unveiling imperialism: media, gender and the war on Afghanistan. Media, Culture & Society, 27 (5), 765-782.


Academics Blogs

Mixed Martial Arts, Fighters Rights, and an Enforced Muhammad Ali Act?

For those who believe that a society and all its components are best understood through its economic system, we need to examine external regulation if we are to understand and predict future worker-employer relationships. This is true for any industry, sporting or otherwise, including mixed martial arts (MMA).

Those familiar with combat sports history know that boxing is among the most corrupt sports in the modern era. While all sports include dimensions of constructed spectacle, boxing’s track record in manipulating theatrical drama is particularly bothersome. The backdrop to boxing mega-fights, dramatized press conferences and other pre-fight hype includes a plethora of unknown, underpaid fighters, sacrificed in manufactured mismatches that build prospects’ reputations.

As a combat sport promoted through gladiator type pageantry, MMA inevitably follows a good portion of boxing’s promotional structure. Fighters typically build their reputation at the local level in smaller shows, working their way through modest paydays in organizations that have varying levels of oversight. The sacrifices of today are deemed worthwhile in hopes that financial dreams are realized in a larger organization tomorrow. As noted previously, these hopes and dreams are rarely met, and the stories of unknown fighters remain, unknown.

The process for every fighter is long and arduous – physically taxing on one’s body, emotions, pocketbook, and social network. In working through the process, fighters incessantly go through what Spencer (2009) calls “body callusing” – “whereby the fighter takes his/her body as a site of action and aggressively seeks…to harden the body and turn it into a weapon” (p. 127) that can distribute and endure pain.

Because MMA has been institutionalized for under two decades, we are still unable to tell the long-term health effects its training and competitions have on participants. But considering MMA’s physical demands, it is appropriate to ask how fighters will be protected in the years to come by external regulating bodies, if they are protected at all.

Federal Regulation or Not?

Central to this issue is whether or not industries should be regulated by the free market, states, or federal government. Under the Reagan-Bush era, governmental regulation was defined as a hindrance to individual rights and private enterprise. Essentially, this political ideology professed that entrepreneurs, their innovation and business drive should not be stymied by oppressive federal oversight. The flip side to this political paradigm is that an unbridled free market without regulation fuels brutal business practices where business owners act dishonorably, exploiting labor as they market their product.

With regard to MMA, regulation in the United States materializes on a state by state basis. This was accomplished first in 2000 in New Jersey, just before Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta and Dana White took over the helm of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) in 2001. Since then, the UFC has actively sought regulation, serving as MMA’s principle lobbyists across the United States and selected cities beyond U.S. borders.

A key topic in the push for regulation is fighter safety, more specifically, how the “Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts Combat” minimize major sporting injuries. This is one of two publicly debated issues (the other being the glorification of violence). Lost in the public discourse, however, is how regulation protects fighters’ financial interests.

Maher (2010) provides a few notable examples rarely discussed across the MMA media landscape. California, for instance, does not allow individuals who have been licensed within the MMA industry within the past two years to serve on its athletic commission, thereby deterring conflicts of interests between commission members and private MMA organizations. Nevada’s commission requires a “bout agreement” in advance of matches which insures that fighters are compensated their promised purse (i.e., payment).

“Deal content,” or compensation, on the other hand, is currently not regulated. Thus, fighter pay is essentially determined by each individual fighter’s bargaining power, which is contingent upon his/her fight record, management team, and especially public notoriety. In short, there is very little, if anything, in the way of state regulation that assists fighters in advocating for what they may define as fair pay and other occupational rights (e.g., broad-based health insurance). Federally, occupational rights specific to MMA are non-existent.

Bolstering Regulation Via a Federally Enforced Muhammad Ali Act

As stated by Varney (2009), Congress passed the Professional Boxing Safety Act (“Safety Act”) into law in 1996 to help clean up the sport while providing federal oversight. The act requires that (1) all boxing matches are supervised by state athletic commissions; (2) all boxers go through a physical examination by a certified physician to determine his/her physical fitness; (3) an ambulance and/or medics with proper medical equipment be on sight; and (4) a physician be present at ringside.

The Safety Act clearly has a focus on physical safety and is more or less mimicked in the MMA industry. The Safety Act, however, does not address in any way the potential financial exploitation of fighters. Thus, the Safety Act was augmented in 2000 with the Muhammad Ali Act (“Ali Act”), which calls:

• To protect the rights and welfare of professional boxers on an interstate basis by preventing certain exploitative, oppressive, and unethical business practices;


• To assist State boxing commissions in their efforts to provide more effective public oversight of the sport; and


• To promote honorable competition in professional boxing and enhance the overall integrity of the industry (Varney, 2009, p. 288).

Perhaps most importantly, the Ali Act also requires that bout information be provided to the State Attorney General upon request as a means to further “discourage a promoter from engaging in unfair or unsavory business dealings” (Varney, 2009, p. 292).

Varney’s work explains how the Ali Act would benefit MMA fighters. For example, boxing matches on Indian reservations must follow Ali Act regulations. MMA matches on Indian reservations are entitled much more leeway, often allowing for matches without proper medical testing and unequal matchmaking (e.g., unreasonable weight differences between fighters).

Furthermore, Varney argues that arbitrary/subjective enhanced bonuses provided to select fighters by MMA promotions would be lessened if these financial rewards were properly and publicly disclosed. While these arbitrary bonuses help the selected fighters, they obviously do not help the majority of other fighters competing on respective fight cards. And being subjectively distributed, the bonuses could point to favoritism on the part of the promotion.

A properly administered Ali Act in MMA would also insure that title fights and ongoing employment were based on objective rankings (which would be based on fight records and opponents fought). This would help prevent deserving fighters from being released or “buried” by promotions if they expressed disagreement with certain managerial practices. And finally, a properly enforced Ali Act in MMA would standardize minimum bout agreements.

Of course, even if the Ali Act was applied to MMA, it would change nothing unless it was enforced. Title IX is a perfect example. While Title IX mandated gender equity across all sectors of educational institutions, its impact was not felt until universities began enforcing it. Enforcement for Title IX only came with threatened legal action. In MMA, fighters currently lack the power and solidarity to take such action.

Federalization and Unionization

Fighters could be empowered if MMA was legally sanctioned in all 50 states, and done so in standardized form. Maher (2010) worries that because some states currently regulate MMA with stricter guidelines than others, MMA promotions (particularly those on the fiscal bubble) may “race to the bottom” by holding events in states where regulations are the most relaxed (i.e., cheapest), thereby increasing the risk to fighters. This could also apply on Indian reservations, where regulations appear the most lenient and least costly economically for promotions.

Unionization is also relevant here. Maher writes, “Existing state regulation does little to regulate the terms of the deals between promoters, managers, and fighters…. Like laborers elsewhere, MMA athletes face significant bargaining disadvantages relative to promoters, in terms of financial and legal resources, education, and alternative employment” (p. 41).

A fighters union could help push for minimum compensation and other worker rights, such as extended health insurance and initial planning into some kind of pension plan. The alternative outlook is increased numbers of aged-out veterans who continue to fight paycheck-to-paycheck, snared in by the sport’s onerous fiscal structure (see for example, Jonathan Snowden’s recent piece on Jens Pulver).

A drive towards unionization, however, cannot materialize until a number of other legal conditions are ironed out. As Maher explains, if MMA fighters are considered independent contractors, as opposed to company employees, unionization is not an option. However, when fighters are under exclusive promotional contracts (meaning they cannot fight for another organization) and are engaged in “an essential part of the [promoter’s] normal operations” (p. 43) (i.e., fighting), fighters stand a good chance of being defined as employees, who could then advocate for unionization.

What does the future pose for fighter rights in MMA?

Maher (2010) speculates that fans may be inclined to see increased federal regulation since our current economic crisis is blamed heavily on a lack of federal oversight. Previously, I noted that most fans would not seriously support fighter rights since improved fighter rights means higher company costs, and in turn, higher costs for fans to watch MMA, and I believe this to still be the case.

In the era of Obama and the President’s extremely minor push towards expanded health care (Clinton’s health care reform proposal was actually stronger), the conservative backlash to federal regulation has been extremely strong. Coupled with the ongoing economic crisis, bank bailouts, and high unemployment rates, the American public’s frustration with “big government” continues to fester. Unfortunately, if calls for government to “stay out of our lives” continues, this allows the free market to run unchecked, leaving the average worker with less leverage, and fighters more exploitable.

That is unless, someone, somewhere, with significant influence takes action.

Non-internet References:

Maher, B. S. (2010). Understanding and regulating the sport of mixed martial arts. Hastings Communication & Entertainment Law Journal, 1-43.

Spencer, D. C. (2009). Habit(us), body techniques and body callusing: an ethnography of mixed martial arts. Body & Society, 15 (4), 119-143.

Varney, G. (2009). Fighting for respect: MMA’s struggle for acceptance and how the Muhammad Ali Act would give it a sporting chance. West Virginia Law Review, 112, 269-305.


Academics Blogs

Reading Eminem and Rihanna's 'Love The Way You Lie'

Ever since Eminem and Rihanna's video for their hit song "Love The Way You Lie" was released, I've been thinking about the song's violent lyrics and its video's violent imagery. The folks over at Sociological Images helped me wrap my initial thoughts around the video:

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a beautiful song. Rihanna’s vocals are gorgeous; it’s was hard to not feel heartfelt while listening to them. And that’s the problem. It’s a powerful form of socialization. That we might internalize the message that passionate love and incontrollable rage go hand-in-hand is really very scary. It suggests not only that you should tolerate interpersonal violence but that, if there is no violence in your relationship, perhaps you don’t really love one another.

How many individuals feel happy when their partner expresses jealousy, even goes into a jealous rage? Why is that dynamic normalized in varying degrees? There's no denying the song's popularity. According to Yahoo! Finance, "Love the Way You Lie," "...has reigned at No. 1 on the Digital Songs chart for five consecutive weeks and has sold more than 1.4 million downloads." A portion of the lyrics:

Told you this is my fault
Look me in the eyeball
Next time I'm pissed
I'll aim my fist
At the dry wall
Next time
There will be no next time
I apologize
Even though I know it's lies
I'm tired of the games
I just want her back
I know I'm a liar
If she ever tries to fucking leave again
I'mma tie her to the bed
And set the house on fire

Graphic and shocking to say the least, as are the images in the video, which features movie and television stars Megan Fox and Dominic Monaghan:

Graphic and shocking was largely the point. The song was authored by Eminem, who then asked to collaborate with Rihanna, in part because of her history as an intimate partner violence (IPV) victim (listen here for an excellent discussion on Rihanna, Chris Brown, and the gendered politics of IPV). Against my general principles, I dug into the "bee-bop" popular culture internet sites to see what I could find about how this song and video were intended to address IPV. In fact, there are direct connections being made between the video and IPV.

For instance, Megan Fox has donated her video appearance fee to a shelter for battered women. And in a VH1 interview with Rihanna, the music star explains her and Eminem's personal connection to the song's theme:

"It's something that, you know, [Eminem and I have] both experienced, you know, on different sides, different ends of the table," she said.

"It just was authentic. It was real," Rihanna continued. "It was believable for us to do a record like that, but it was also something that needed to be done and the way he did it was so clever. He pretty much just broke down the cycle of domestic violence and it's something that a lot people don't have a lot of insight on, so this song is a really, really powerful song and it touches a lot of people."

[...]

Ultimately, the song was something Rihanna felt was in line with her past relationship. "The lyrics were so deep, so beautiful and intense. It's something that I understood, something I connected with," she revealed.

Dominic Monaghan ads:

"The concept of 'Love the Way You Lie' was essentially a look at the relationship that Eminem was in with his wife, Kim, so I kind of felt like I was playing Eminem a little bit, and Megan Fox was kind of playing Kim.

"It's the story of them getting to know each other, and it's the story of their tumultuous relationship, and it was the story of the breakdown of their relationship," he continued. "Ultimately, what I think he's trying to say in the song ... is that he should have walked away a little bit quicker than he did and not let it get as messy as it did."

At least explicity, there was critical thought put into this popular culture artifact. My question is, how will young people from different demographics and different life experiences interpret the song's and video's violent content? The one empirical study I could find on Eminem's music and its effects on listeners found that young adults who listened to his songs with misogynistic lyrics were largely unaffected by them, though the study was only conducted with research participants who were college students (Cobb & Boettcher, 2007).

In my dissertation, adolescent research participants spoke quite openly about the ways they saw IPV as completely normal. These were teens who had experienced multiple forms of violence throughout their lives (peer, family, romantic, drug, physical, verbal) -- certainly not the average college student. I wonder what their interpretations would be.

Then yesterday, I heard a male radio DJ essentially state the following after "Love The Way You Lie" was played: "You know, Megan Fox is supposed to play an abused victim in that song's video, (chuckling) but in the video, she's the abuser. I didn't see her get hit once. She was doing all the hitting!" Uh, yeah, real funny. Was that the video's intent? And did he miss all the punching of the walls (physical intimidation)? Contrast that point of view with a female student in my Sociology of Popular Culture class:

As for the video, I think maybe it has good intentions, especially using two artists who have a history with IPV, but I don't think it will be beneficial. Using [Dominic Monaghan] and Megan Fox (a sex symbol for everyone today) [it] seems to glorify the topic by using two high end celebrities. This video seemed like it wanted to make domestic violence look sexy and possessiveness look masculine.

Perhaps for some listeners, the song and video do raise consciousness regarding IPV prevention -- what Monaghan said the video is intended to accomplish. But certainly not for everyone. For the student quoted above, the video was offensive and reified traditional gender norms. To get a little academic, from John Storey (1993):

...an image containing references to pop music culture might be seen by a young audience as an index of freedom and heterogeneity, whilst to an older audience it might signal manipulation and homgeneity. Which codes are mobilized will largely depend on the triple context of the location of the text, the historical moment and the cultural formation of the reader (p. 80).

Since people with different social histories interpret popular culture differently, I'd be interested to see how young people from different demographics digest this song and video. Do the cultural artifacts problematize IPV (the stated intent) or further normalize and perpetuate this form of violence?

Or, as indicated by the radio DJ, does this video mobilize codes that perpetuate misunderstandings about co-occurring violence in intimate relationships? For instance, too many people assume that when males and females hit each other, the physical ramifications are equally harmful. Does the video gloss over the fact that verbal abuse, social isolation, and other forms of control (e.g., forcing what a partner wears) can be more damaging than physical violence?

The song's and video's influence will likely diminish over time. Nonetheless, "Love The Way You Lie" demonstrates how people's readings of the same cultural product can vary greatly, and how received meanings can be shaped more by audiences' past experiences than by the cultural producers.

Non Internet Sources:

Cobb, M. D., & Boettcher, W. A. (2007). Ambivalent Sexism and Misogynistic Rap Music: Does Exposure to Eminem Increase Sexism? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37 (12), 3025-3042.

Storey, J. (1993). An Introductory Guide to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. Athens: University of Georgia Press.


Blogging

Mixed Martial Arts: Evolution Of The Sport and Its Fans

Sporting traditionalists frequently grumble when chief administrators alter sporting structures as they cater to new fans' demands. Traditionalists tend to argue that when sporting rules are changed or athletic skills are abandoned, we are witnessing a commodification of sport that values theater and spectacle over virtuous athleticism (Sewart, 1987).

In the sport of mixed martial arts (MMA), the debate is a bit more convoluted, calling for a somewhat technical and academic examination.

Despite MMA's mere 17 year history, supporters and critics have quarreled extensively over the sport's trajectory and the way MMA may symbolize a moral threshold for societal violence. However, in MMA we have seen a public effort to formalize rule structure and secure governmental regulation since the sport's 1993 inception, both before and after Zuffa, LLC took over the UFC in 2001.

Sports theorists (van Bottenburg & Heilbron, 2006) have suggested that as MMA continues to grow (or stagnate), it can follow four overarching pathways, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

1. Abolition and demise: states or countries may pass or maintain legislation that bans MMA (e.g., the push back seen in New York State, Vancouver, and Germany). Demise may also include the folding of MMA organizations due to financial concerns (e.g., EliteXC).
2. Underground: abolition and demise may contribute to illegal, unregulated MMA competitions hidden from state officials (though underground competitions can also take place in regions where MMA is legal).
3. Re-sportization: increased state regulation with stricter rule sets that would focus not only on in-ring/cage competition, but also on refereeing, athlete health prior to and after competition, and fighter-manager-promoter relationships. In contrast with many other sports, MMA (in particular the UFC) has overtly pushed for state regulation in recent years (Smith, 2010).
4. Spectacularization: "...a shift of attention away from fighting skills to the show and spectacle surrounding the events" (p. 277). The recent match between Cris Santos and Jan Finney stands as an example here. The match was so uneven, some argue it never should have been allowed in the first place, but was scheduled nonetheless so fans could watch Santos' compete at all.

While all four pathways are occurring simultaneously across different MMA organizations and in different regions of the world, the modest academic literature published to date on MMA argues re-sportization is the more common trajectory being followed thus far.

Garcia and Malcolm (2010) argue in their essay, "Decivilizing, civilizing or informalizing: The international development of Mixed Martial Arts," that although MMA promoters tend to publicly advertise MMA competitions as dangerous and appear excessively violent in order to draw in more fans, sporting violence in MMA has actually decreased. They suggest that while MMA, like all combat sports, is inherently violent and can be dangerous, the violence now manifests in a highly controlled environment (when properly regulated).

The staunchest defense of MMA, however, has come from Maher's (2010) work, which meticulously details how regulation of MMA has sought to improve athlete safety through improved rules, oversight of performance enhancing drugs, and medical safeguards. Maher also argues MMA organizations have improved in promoting fair contests (as opposed to unfair matches booked to promote a more likely winner), and in restricting conflicts of interest between promoters, managers, and fighters.

Maher's very thorough work, however, focuses too heavily on the UFC. As noted previously, spectacularization still transpires in MMA, which does little to promote fighter safety. The most interesting questions Maher raises are whether or not (1) MMA can secure federalized, standardized regulation across the United States; and (2) fighters can coalesce to form a union that effectively advocates for their rights (questions I will be addressing in my next piece, and related to my last piece, "Marxist Mixed Martial Arts?").

Notably, all the above referenced work is theoretical or historical. Very little scholarly research has been conducted that relies on empirical research. In fact, the only empirical research conducted thus far relevant to the issue of spectacularization and fan desire has found that invested MMA fans do not want to see lopsided matches.

Kim, Andrew, and Greenwell (2009) surveyed MMA fans attending an amateur card in the American Midwest (N = 208) and an event held in South Korea (N = 229). In both sites, research subjects indicated that their primary motive for attending the event was their interest in the sport (i.e., they are an MMA fan and care about MMA). "Drama" ranked #2 among South Korean fans and #3 among American fans, meaning fans desired close competitions, not unfair, lopsided fights.

Among the 12 possible motives for attending the event, "violence" ranked #5 for Americans and #11 for South Koreans. These findings are especially important because they tell MMA promoters that fans want to see fights exemplifying high-level MMA skills between evenly matched, prepared opponents, not promotional "freakshows" that decrease fighter safety.

Let's give the fans what they want.

References:

Garcia, R. S., & Malcolm, D. (2010). Decivilizing, civilizing or informalizing: The international development of Mixed Martial Arts. International Review of the Sociology of Sport, 45 (1), 39-58.

Maher, B. S. (2010). Understanding and regulating the sport of mixed martial arts. Hastings Communication and Entertainment Law Journal, Winter.

Sewart, J. J. (1987). The commodification of sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 22 (3), 171-191.

Smith, J. T. (2010). Fighting for regulation: mixed martial arts legislation in the United States. Drake Law Review, Winter.

van Bottenburg, M., & Heilbron, J. (2006). De-sportization of fighting contests: the origins and dynamics of no hold barred events and the theory of sportization. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 41 (3/4), 259-281.

Blog search

How Does Society Define "Sport?": Cheerleading

Over on NPR, Frank Deford asks if cheerleading is a sport. I must admit, in high school I absolutely despised cheerleading, precisely because so many cheerleaders considered themselves athletes. At least at my high school, the cheerleaders did not compete against other squads as is more common today.

I suppose we first have to ask what goes into being a "sport," and I'm not sure that there is a cut and dry answer. The two conditions I value the most are (1) a sport must involve formal competition; and (2) a sport must require competitors to utilize their bodies as the primary medium through which the competition takes place, in such a way that physical conditioning is central to the competition.

Although a courtroom legal battle is clearly competitive and relies on body parts to some degree, physical conditioning is not central to the competition. To me, horse racing and auto racing are not sports, and their participants are not athletes. I'm sure there is some heavy disagreement on that last statement, but the way I see it, the horse/car is doing the bulk of the work in those events, not the person (or athlete).

So what is the controversy surrounding cheerleading? In competitive cheerleading, the participants are engaged in highly physical training, and notably with regard to physical dangers, the risk of catastrophic injury is very high, especially for females. And as the name indicates, in competitive cheerleading, there is formal competition against other teams.

Part of the controversy might be that unlike other N.C.A.A. sports, cheerleading teams do not compete very often. Where I teach, the cheerleading team has won eight consecutive national championships, most recently at the Division II level. Unfortunately, the team only gets to compete once per year (technically, they get to compete a few times, but they only make one annual trip for competition). The rest of their activities involve practice for their national competition, and practice for their performances at university sporting events. And this is where I think the implicit controversy truly lies, though it will never be explicitly stated.

Cheerleading is traditionally gendered as a highly feminine performance-based activity that supports athletics. Under popular belief, femininized cheerleaders exist to support the "true," masculine athletes. Go to any high school, college, or pro basketball or football game, and what is the cheerleaders' primary function? To compete against the opposing team's cheerleaders? No, the cheerleaders' primary function is to support the athletes (male or female), who are considered more masculine and the central focus of the event, engaged in the central competition. The cheerleaders are peripheral.

Additionally, because cheerleading is based so heavily on being pretty, it is further marginalized from the so-called real, masculine sports. This is precisely why sports like synchronized swimming and ice skating are so often femininzed and ridiculed as sports even though those sports always involve competition (and from what I've heard, the training for synchronized swimming is among the most difficult in the sporting world).

All sports are spectacle. But the more a sport's performance-based attributes require looking pretty (e.g., smiling, wearing gaudy attire), the less it will be considered a sport by mainstream fans because being pretty is feminine, and sports are supposed to be tough masculine turf. Thus, cheerleading has key elements going against it when trying to be defined as a sport -- the competitions are few and far between (actually, many cheerleading teams never compete), and more importantly, society defines cheerleading as a highly feminine activity.

This shows us how sport is a microcosom of society. That which is peripheral, supportive, and pretty is deemed feminine. That which is central, served by others, and physically tough is deemed masculine.


Blog search

Marxist Mixed Martial Arts?

Before jumping into a Marxist analysis of MMA, I wanted to follow up on my previous opinion piece posted here a few days ago, titled “Theorizing Violence in Sport: The Case of Mixed Martial Arts (July 23, 2010).” The essay gained a little bit of traction across the MMA blogosphere discussed on BloodyElbow, Sherdog, and the UG. Not a terribly big deal, but I believe responses were a bit unfair to Zuffa, LLC and the UFC specifically, both in the receptive headlines and general discourse. My original article did not mention the UFC too much more than Strikeforce. However, it seemed the UFC was presented as the sole MMA organization to be held responsible, as opposed to an example of a profitable organization that may want to foster safety measures beyond its current organization.

Additionally, I was careful not to explicitly state that any MMA organization (UFC, Strikeforce, whichever) should be responsible for investing in a kind of minor league, MMA farm system. From the final paragraph in my original piece: “Perhaps this means larger MMA organizations like the UFC and Strikeforce need to consider investing their profits in smaller organizations to help improve an infrastructure that bolsters safety precautions…” Considering broader investment in safety-based infrastrcutre across smaller organizations is not radical by any means.

A good example of a model would be the WEC before the folks at Zuffa decided to cut the heavier weight classes. Under the Zuffa umbrella, the WEC ostensibly served as a farm system for fighters in multiple weight classes (155lbs – LHW) who could matriculate into the UFC when their talents warranted promotion. And with the WEC under the Zuffa banner, it was (and still is for the WEC fighters in lighter weight classes) understood the strictest, most thorough safety precautions would be taken, in large part because the parent company (Zuffa) could afford them.

If we are going to focus on Zuffa, this could mean the Fertitta brothers, Dana White, and company identifying smaller, regional MMA organizations with whom they would like to forge formal partnerships and investing in their organizational development (e.g., promotional strategies, fighter recruitment). This would also mean enforcing the most thorough medical/safety precautions that may frequently exceed state regulations. In return, hopefully the best fighters would gravitate towards those farm organizations and safely progress to the UFC.

No model is perfect. Tensions could emerge between whatever parent MMA organization is running the show and the smaller feeder organizations over any number of issues. Mapping out and implementing such a plan would take years, but prominent, successful organizations have vision and make long-term organizational plans. One central focus (and the one with which I am obviously most concerned) is broad-based prevention. This was never and is not now an alarmist response to two deaths in sanctioned MMA. This is a public health-type prevention response, arguing those tragedies are important, and long-term, it would benefit the industry if wide-spread measures were taken to prevent/minimize future deaths and major injuries.

If we can agree that Zuffa provides the best medical precautions, why not work to expand that infrastructure? Then the issue of cost comes up, and presumably, Zuffa shrunk the WEC at least in part because having so many weight classes was not fiscally profitable, leading me to my next point…

A Marxist Interpretation of MMA

In a developed society like the United States that leans heavily towards capitalism and the free market, a highly successful private enterprise is obviously not responsible for ensuring other, smaller companies are implementing any level of worker safety. As noted in the original essay, although the bigger MMA organizations rely on the smaller ones for worker development/recruitment, there is to my knowledge no formal relationship between them. On the contrary, MMA organizations big and small may even identify one another as competition and have antagonistic relationships. And that is part of the crux in this discussion (sorry, what follows is gonna get a bit lengthy and lecture-ish).

If applying a very Marxist viewpoint, in a for-profit company, those at the top will never pay its workers their full value, let alone workers outside of their organization. In fact, capitalist companies world-wide know that the best way to maximize profit is not via sales (though sales are necessary), but via under-paying labor. Hence, within a capitalist system, the proletariat (fighters) will always be at odds with the bourgeoisie (promoters/owners), as maximizing worker cost minimizes profit margin. Thus, it is not in any company’s best interests financially to support workers, especially workers industry-wide.

Sticking with the Marxist lens, the difficult part for fighters is so many have what Marx called “false consciousness” – they genuinely believe that to a large degree they benefit from more than they are harmed by the bourgeoisie, industry, and social structure. Not only does the promoter pay the fighter, but through the industry, fighters report learning positive values (e.g., discipline) and attain a certain status (e.g., celebrity, alpha male). This status coupled with financial compensation helps fighters cope with a sense of alienation from their own bodies. Their own bodies become defined as tools for the MMA industry, in this case tools valued for their ability to destruct other fighters and absorb pain in the short-term, rather than healthy bodies over time.

And while previous research shows that fighters are keenly aware of their own exploitation (see Loic Wacqunt’s qualitative work with boxers), fighters will inevitably invest their efforts in fighting each other rather than the power structure. Supporting the company line and defeating a fellow fighter yields far more social rewards now than working with fellow workers to secure worker rights years from now (never mind trying to do so individually). And management knows this. Keeping workers invested in the company and divided among themselves means there is no collective working-class resistance to conquer.

Hence, even when the most socially powerful fighters like Randy Couture challenge management, the collective silence of all other fighters vastly outweighs Couture’s protest, and eventually he is compelled to return if he wants to continue practicing his craft at the highest level. And high-level, well-compensated fighters, like Couture, Brock Lesner, and Chuck Liddell, are portrayed almost as a norm, even though they are outlying exceptions with regard to worker compensation across the MMA landscape.

The other issue at hand for Marx is the broader public, or in this case, MMA fans. Capitalism functions more efficiently when workers as a whole have leisure time to re-charge (hence, we have weekends, holidays, vacation). Sport functions in society for workers as a site where one can have a reprieve from work, only to go back to work without complaining about it. The MMA industry is built largely from the reality that much of our society values and has commodified violence as a form of entertainment.

Thus as capitalist enterprises, MMA organizations know they can increase profits not only by increased gate and pay-per-view sales, but also through advertising deals, DVD sales, clothing sales, and so on. And as long as enough of the larger society values violence as a form of entertainment, the broader public will support the industry that creates this manifestation of violence, but not the workers that enable the industry to run.

If workers outside the MMA industry value quality MMA fights but don’t want to pay unreasonable costs to watch them, they are not going to seriously advocate for the fighters’ rights. Doing so would increase MMA company costs and in turn costs of MMA pay-per-views, tickets, and merchandising. Consequently, those who utilize their bodies as labor are resigned to (in this case literally) fight for themselves and against one another. They don’t get broad-based, radical support from the bourgeoisie, each other, or the broader public.

One could reasonably argue, fighters engage in fight sport as a personal choice, and that is ultimately true, but it is true to different degrees for different people. People are born with vastly different life chances. It is no coincidence that such a high proportion of boxers from different ethnic demographics have come from very working-class backgrounds over the decades.

And while MMA currently has a larger proportion of fighters from middle-class backgrounds, one can go back to the way our society values masculine violence as a form of entertainment. This will inevitably influence heavy numbers of males to pursue a pro MMA career, often at the expense of other, more likely and lengthy vocational paths. And back to the issue at hand, sacrificing the more likely career path means not crossing the boss once in the MMA industry.

With all this in mind, who is going to support the fighters, and not just the ones that already make six figures?


Blogosphere